The Club of Amsterdam is an independent, international, future-oriented think tank involved in channelling preferred futures. It involves those who dare to think out of the box and those who don't just talk about the future but actively participate in shaping outcomes. www.clubofamsterdam.com

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Consumer Idealized Design: Involving Consumers in The Product Development Process

by Susan Ciccantelli and Jason Magidson

A product or service is designed effectively if it provides consumers withwhat they want, rather than merely removing what they do not want. But determiningwhat consumers need or will want is an effort that does not often meet withsuccess. In fact, suppliers' beliefs about consumers' wants have led to moreproduct failures than successes. The main reason for this is not hard to understand:Consumers' needs and desires are elusive because consumers themselves generallyhave not consciously formulated what they are or how to fulfill them.

Even when consumers are aware of what they want and are willing to reveal it,their wants are likely to be conditioned by what is available. And when theproduct or service available is basically unsatisfying to them, they are unlikelyto reveal startling new desires or concepts. At best, the typical ways in whichconsumers are involved in product design-focus groups, surveys and questionnaires-tendto elicit mostly information about what they do not want, rather than startlingnew insights about what they really want or need. This is due in part to thefact that people often attempt to provide answers that they think the inquirerwants, rather than probe for their own preferences.

So the search continues, and product developers continue to seek ways to helpconsumers (1) become more aware of what they need or want, and (2) reveal thesewants as accurately as possible. One such way, developed by Russell L. Ackoff,is a process called Consumer Idealized Design (Consumer Design).

Consumer Idealized Design

Consumer design involves actual or potential consumers in an unconstraineddesign of their ideal product or service.

In consumer design, participants are told not to be concerned with the feasibilityof the designs they create, only with their desirability. They are also encouragedto specify ways in which the product might be made flexible enough to accommodatechanges in consumers' needs. In proposing the design, consumer participantsare free of all constraints except two:

(1) The product or service cannot involve any technology that does not currentlyexist.

For example, a participant could say that she wants publicly available drive-it-yourselftaxis that are coin-operated, because the technology exists to construct them.On the other hand, she cannot say that she wants an automobile that can runon water, since this is not possible using current (proven) technology.

In some cases, knowing whether technology exists to realize consumers' designsmay be difficult to assess. However, we have found that the collective knowledgeof a group is generally sufficient to make decisions regarding the inclusionof uncertain technological capabilities. The product or service must conformto the law. This constraint extends to any rules or regulations imposed by thegovernment that limit the use of the product or service. For example, one cannotdesign an automobile that emits a poisonous gas.

Consumer design starts from the ground up and ignores feasibility in the earlystages of the design process. This is because it is based on the belief thatthe principal obstruction to creativity is a preoccupation with feasibility,a condition that is usually associated with self-imposed (rather than actual)constraints.

Consumer design assumes that, given the proper tools and facilitation, averageconsumers are often best equipped to design-from a functional standpoint-thoseproducts and services that are required for situations with which they havebecome familiar. It is this input from consumers early on in the product developmentprocess that differentiates consumer design sessions from traditional focusgroups and surveys.

How Consumer Design Works

Consumer design is similar to a focus group in some general ways:

A small group is selected from a segment of the market that the product developerhas chosen to target; The process takes place in a large conference room; andthe event can either be taped or viewed behind one-way mirrors. At this point,the similarities end. Unlike focus groups, which are usually completed in lessthan 3 hours, consumer design sessions generally require an entire day. Participantsare usually not required to prepare in any way for the session. However, discussionby the client organization should provide an accurate description of the characteristicsof ideal participants. It may be desirable to have prospective participantscomplete a questionnaire before the session, to ensure that participants meetthe client's profile of the ideal consumer of their forthcoming product or service.

Assisted by a facilitator -someone who guides but does not provide contentto the session - the participants are asked to imagine that an existing productor service with which they are familiar was destroyed overnight, and that theyare going to have the opportunity to create something totally new in its place.They then engage in a brainstorming session to prepare a basic list of specificationsfor the ideal product or service to be designed. Specifications can includeany feature desired by the participants, no matter how outrageous, as well asstandard characteristics such as color, weight, function, size, speed, shape,availability, cost, and so on.

The facilitator records all suggestions and proposals on a large flip-chartso that everyone present can see them. At this stage, all specifications arerecorded, even those that may be in conflict with each other. The entire groupthen debates the merits of each point raised and finally arrives at some decisionsregarding the ideal. In sessions of over 6 people, participants then break intosmaller groups to plan out designs which will incorporate as many of the specificationsas possible. This generally takes between one and two hours. The entire groupis then reassembled to present their designs and discuss the advantages anddisadvantages of each. After this discussion, the smaller groups re-conveneto refine and change their designs, incorporating the ideas presented by theother group(s) as desired. This process is repeated as many times as possibleuntil the end of the day, with the goal being to arrive at one design that incorporatesall of the participants' idealizations.

If a facilitator is skillful, it seldom takes more than three iterations toreach a consensus on a consumer idealized design (i.e., all participants feelthe end product is better than anything else currently available). In our experience,several skills contribute to success. First, if the participants refer to orcomplain about existing products or services, the facilitator should immediatelybreak in and remind the group that for the purposes of this session these nolonger exist and they should stay focused on the objective of designing whatthey would like if they could have anything they wanted. Second, when disagreementsarise, the facilitator can handle them in several ways. In some cases, the facilitatorcan ask the group to assess the importance of the disagreement and considerwhether they should set it aside for discussion later, so that progress canbe made in other areas. Where agreement cannot be reached, the facilitator shouldsuggest an experiment or other research by which the better approach can bedetermined in practice (e.g., manufacture two types of roofing materials thatconsumers disagree on, offer them for sale, and see whether one sells betterthan the other). This is a resolution approach to which people often unanimouslyagree.

A third skill that contributes to a successful design effort is rememberingto probe, when design specifications are contributed, by asking the question"Why?" This can help to eliminate redundancy in the final design, but, moreimportantly, it forces the designers to articulate desires which are often notknown to producers.

Finally, facilitators of a successful design effort should guide participantstoward their ideal and away from what they perceive as obstructions. In thisrespect, the objection which is most often raised in the group design effortis cost.

Interactive Design vs. Reactive "Focus"

A consumer design session is characterized by at least three features whichdistinguish it from a focus group.

(1) It requires innovation and interaction from participants.

(2) It is task-oriented, competitive and consensus-generating.

(3) It requires the articulation and design of the group's notion of the idealin a designated product or service category.

Innovation

Focus groups generally begin and end with the product developers' conceptfor a new or improved product or service. Conversely, a consumer design sessionbegins with a blank slate. When consumer design is successful, the end resultis a design that represents not only previously unarticulated needs and wantsof the participants, but a record for the product developer of the underlyingreasons for those design decisions.

For example, in a design of the ideal men's clothing store, participants-whohad been selected from the store owner's targeted customer group-arranged differentarticles of similar types of clothing by size, rather than by type. In theirscheme, all available styles of suit jackets, sport jackets, vests, shirts,and outerwear for the upper body were grouped together by size. The reason givenwas that the consumer designers didn't like hunting all over the store to retrievethese different articles. Armed with this new understanding of their preferredcustomer group, the store's owners' identified alternate ways to address thisneed: having a salesperson select the desired articles in the appropriate sizesfor VIP customers, and maintaining records of customers' clothing and size requirements.

Task-Orientation, Competition, and Consensus

As anyone who has led or participated in a focus group knows, these groupscan easily degenerate into "beef sessions." In some cases the group will becomepolarized, or launch an all-out attack upon the product idea being introduced.A consumer design session eliminates this possibility since the group is itselfresponsible for producing answers to the challenge posed by a particular productor service need.

For example, in the design of an ideal service station, one group designeda full-service facility while another wanted a drive-up geared to speed andconvenience. Their solution: a fast, fully automated, express lane which couldeither be conveniently located near the exit of a full-service station, or placedin a smaller location as stand-alone (or "micro-) station. These units wouldutilize a credit or debit card and personal ID code, thereby eliminating theneed to leave the pump area. They would also provide an option similar to anautomated teller machine's "Fast Cash" service, and allow consumers to select$2, $5, $10 or $20 worth of gas with a single entry.

The "combination design" was further refined by the group at large to be adaptedfor both urban and highway uses.

Even in those cases in which consensus is not reached, information is revealedin disagreements that may be useful to the product or service provider. Generallysuch situations suggest the desirability of providing options, or conductingfurther research to determine what is preferred by the majority of a targetmarket. Repeated attempts to meet all of the group members' desired specificationsoften raise new questions and issues, requiring revamped decisions and subsequentdiscussion. In addition, consensus provides the consumer design process withdirection; it also-in conjunction with the time constraint-pushes participantsto come up with imaginative solutions.

Designing the Ideal

Consumer design offers participants a chance to become the designer. As suchis places them in a position of power, if only temporarily and hypothetically.At the same time, they are faced with the challenge of getting to the heartof what it is that they really want. For example, the customers of an urbanneighborhood grocery store and outdoor cafe were quick to trade off the occasionalnoisiness of people and music during the summer months for the security providedalong the block by the store's late-night activity and lighting.

A producer's notion of the ideal is generally very different from his customer's.In the case of the new software product (described below), consumer participants'unanimously rejected the (sponsors') idea of a hand-held tracking device. Inaddition, prior to this, the group had agreed that the best system of all wouldinvolve no software or hardware at all, just a trusted friend or relative whowould take all responsibility for tracking household expenses. This ideal setthe priorities in the minds of the sponsor: the product would need to be simple,straightforward and require as little interaction with technology as possible.

Consumer design is similar to focus groups in that it does not attempt todeliver finished product designs. But unlike focus groups, the output of consumerdesign sessions is treated as a point of departure for the remainder of theproduct development process. This is because effective consumer designs shouldgive product and service providers information about what consumers want, and,even more importantly, they should increase their understanding of why theywant what they want.

Consumer Design Outcomes

Consumer design sessions have been conducted for a wide variety of businesses:a major oil company; a major manufacturer of roofing materials; a large supermarketchain; neighborhood grocery stores; a men's clothing retail chain; a computersoftware company; insurance and banking companies; health care facilities; andnational food producers. Three of these experiences are are summarized here.

The Ideal Roof

A major producer and marketer of asphalt roofing shingles had a larger lineof roofing materials than its major competitor, but one of the competitor'sproducts dominated the market. Previous efforts to cut into the competitor'smarket share had met with little or no success. Consumer Design was selectedas a way to explore potential new products that could take some of the dominantproduct's share.

One of the first facts recognized was that there are many participants inthe decision to buy a particular style of roofing shingle: homeowners, architects,roofing contractors, material distributors and retailers. But the answer tothe question "Who makes the buying decision?" is important only if the differentparticipants have different preferences. With this in mind the company set outto determine which type of roof designs and styles each type of participantpreferred.

To accomplish this, small groups of each type of buyer were brought to a speciallyprepared room where they were asked to design their notion of the ideal roof.They worked on 3' x 4' wood panels, and used a wide variety of components, textures,colors, and so on. Components were prepared in such a way that the designs neednot resemble any existing type of roofing. Each participant prepared severaldesigns. When each group had completed its design, they were asked to revieweach others' creations, those of previous groups, and also a selection of roofsavailable on the market at that time.

The effort produced a total of 120 different designs, prepared by 9 differentgroups over the course of several weeks. The designs were analyzed and categorizedaccording to 20 variables. The findings deemed most useful by the client wereas follows:

-Asphalt roofing materials do not have to be made to resemble slate, wood shingles,or clay tiles to be considered attractive.

- In general, homeowners' and architects' designs were much more exotic thanthe conventional designs produced by contractors who install roofs and materialdistributors who sell roofing products.

Several of the designs produced by customers and the analysis were subsequentlyused to modify the client's product line.

The Ideal Service Station

Two groups of consumers-one composed entirely of men and the other of women-wererecruited to design the ideal service station. In general, both groups revealeda desire for more choices: a variety of service facilities, product options,and auxiliary services. The groups acknowledged early on in the process thatauto service needs varied in a number of ways: long or short trips; plannedversus unplanned service; an urban or a highway setting; and the desire forpersonalized or completely automated service. Two representatives of the sponsoringorganization (a major oil company) took part incognito in two day-long sessions.

Some interesting differences emerged between the final designs produced bythe two groups. Women wanted the station to be a source of reliable, straightforwardinformation covering all elements of what they referred to as "the total drivingexperience." This included background, training, and references for their carmechanics; information about fuel sources and composition; and information aboutinsurance and maintenance options. They also expected businesses to show someconcern for the local community. Finally, women's designs addressed the specialneeds of children and the handicapped by including things such as changing tablesin restrooms and wheelchair access.

Both men and women redesigned the pumps and nozzles to make them easier useand store. Other design features common to both were:

- a selection of major brands available at every pump

- a fast, fully automated express lane which could be conveniently located andadapted either as a stand-alone "micro-station" or as part of the super stationdesign for both urban and highway use;

- a commuter lot/station with "disposable" cars

- an emphasis on service-respect for and attention to the customer ("like McDonald's")

- a system for servicing cars when they're not being used.

Both groups produced their own detailed drawings of what the stations wouldlook like, including landscaping, lighting, and clearly marked approaches andexits.

The Ideal Financial Software Product

Two sessions, involving different groups of people, were held to have participantsdesign financial-planning software for household use. The goal was a new productthat would appeal to a market segment different from the company's existing(successful) financial-planning software product. The existing product had itslargest market among persons with a relatively high level of financial sophistication.The new product was intended to cultivate a new, less sophisticated customerbase, many of whom would then "graduate" to become users of the existing product.

Participants were asked to supply information about themselves, includinghousehold income and estimated home value. They were also asked to rate themselveson a scale of 1 to 10 in two areas: (1) their knowledge and understanding ofinvestments; and (2) the amount of control they felt they had over their money.

In the first session, participants were asked to imagine an ideal setup whichwould help them track their personal finances. At this point, the sponsors hada preconceived notion of the new product which incorporated a small, hand-helddevice (similar to a pocket calculator) for tracking daily expenditures. Thisdevice would then plug into a personal computer, where a modular system of softwareprograms would organize, integrate, and analyze the data. They participatedin this first session incognito.

What happened during the first session caused the sponsors to completely revisetheir ideas. Participants revealed that they would like better organizationand control of their finances, but that they were unwilling to use a hand-heldtracking device, no matter how small or "cute." They also didn't want any ofthe "extra work" required to organize their finances. Instead, they wanted asimplified "snapshot" of their total financial situation, as well as graphicrepresentations delineating what they spent in certain categories. Other specificationswere that the proposed system include some type of imposed discipline on theirspending, and the ability to see progress toward stated financial goals.

The first session convinced the sponsors that the product would have to beaimed at households and individuals who regularly experience cash-flow problems.To design software aimed at such a group, a second session was organized witha different set of participants. This group produced a complete set of requirementsfor the new product. These included:

- ease of use

- graphics to show what today's dollars today will be worth at retirement

- savings plans for acquiring major purchases

- tax implications

- and a variety of other consumer information sources, such as credit card rates,travel options, vacation packages, and housing costs in different parts of thecountry.

In addition, extensive specifications were provided for system outputs, suchas monthly, quarterly and annual (printed) reports; balance-sheets, householdbudgets, and a long-term "snapshots." Participants decided that the system shouldbe geared to low-end hardware (costing under $1000), and compatible with existingpopular word-processing and spreadsheet programs. Such a package, they said,should assist individuals who purchased it by "demystifying the chaotic blur"of financial imperatives and options. Finally, the participants said that theywould pay between $40 and $60 for the product.

Conclusion

Many in upper- and middle-management know that in today's complex industrialrelationships, with many middlemen, organizations can be very distanced fromtheir ultimate consumers, and they realize that this distance makes it easyto miss the big picture. Involving consumers in designing products and servicescan put the organization back in touch with its consumers and infuse fresh ideas.

However, customer involvement often has not produced the expected results.Six principles have come out of examination of successful and failed efforts.Companies should: get consumers involved in product and service developmentas early as possible and at all subsequent stages, encourage consumers to focuson what is wanted rather than what is not wanted. encourage consumers to thinkbeyond what is currently available by focusing on what they would like ideally(starting from a clean slate), get consumers to go beyond simply telling whatthey would like by involving them in designing the product or service, encourageconsumers not to worry about likelihood of implementation (feasibility) butto be concerned with desirability, and probe for the reasons why consumers wantwhat they want.

We have discussed how consumer idealized design has helped a number of companiesin a variety of industries improve performance by following the above principles.Even companies that felt confident in their existing marketing strategy andtried consumer idealized design have often been surprised at how much they learned,how it affected their beliefs and practices, and how this led to improved performance.In a world where successful performance is increasingly a moving target, companieswould be wise to become partners with their consumers in shaping it and pursuingit.

15 Comments:

This is a very well thought approach to today's product design complexities.

I have some concerns about this approach, though. What happens when there are more than one type of consumer involved? For example, in the healtchare sector, medical devices are purchased by hospitals, and doctors/nurses may have their own ideas about what the design/functionality/price of a certain device should be. The actual user of the device (patient) may have different ideas.

Gathering patients' opinions may not always be possible. On the other side, I am afraid that the purchasing decision is not going to be made based on patients' opinions (in most cases).

Taking it to a higher level of abstracion, I believe the article is about moving the focus away from non-qualitative measures which consists of "one way" information flows to "two way" flows. That is ONE step in the right direction but the truth is that we are already TWO steps in the right direction! What Im thinking about is "open source" projects. But that is not enough, I want to take THREE steps in the right direction!

CENTRALIZED (local,step 1, the article suggests this)+ Only limited to the current available technology

+ Rich and responsive discussion

- Local thoughts

DECENTRALIZED (global, step 2)+ Global thoughts (very important) -> more "worldviews" (formed by culture, environment and so on. Only because its now on a global scale doesn´t it mean that you cant find persons from different parts of the world which all belong to the same segment/seek the same advantages in producs). This will lead to more "new thoughts"/greater inspiration.

- Poor (forum text) and sometimes timeconsuming discussions

- Limited to the PRE-Specified hardware

But what if we take Aristoteles words for wisdom and combine the best things that comes with the centralized approach (a part) and add that to the advantages of the global view (all parts), what would that give us? The future!

THE WHOLE (step 3)

It is now possible to use rich communication over a distance with the use of a microphone and web cam. Well, should 1000 people sit and have a conversation? Ofcourse not! I believe we need one/many "core" group(s) which can discuss the "poor input" (simple text suggestions and discussions) which has been generated in forums by users all over the globe. That approach catches ALL innovative thoughts and not just those the selected groups can think of.

Here is an example which starts from "step 2" (the open source project stage):A alternative firmware(low level software) to a portable music player is developed by a open source project. It has a very rich set of features compared to the standard firmware. Let´s apply my thoughts on this case:

First of we must remove the "pre-specified hardware" limitation and create a couple of core groups which consists of people knowing hardware, the organization and finally the most important group: the group of people who organizes the innovative thoughts that are found in the forums which is a result of suggestions and discussions. They might also arrenge more groups which can have "rich" discussions.

I call that co-design. I believe it be excellent within business to instigate change with the approval of the people that need to accept the change. They are part of the process, so the investment is valuable to them and a real difference can be made.

I'm doing a co-design project at the moment concerning public libraries and we all get truly excited when talking about what we can do to change things.

I like the concept, but I only read up to your 1st restriction: 1) The product or service cannot involve any technology that does not currently exist. I think you are shooting yourself in the foot with that. 1st it assumes consumers know all the tech that exists 2nd more new tech is being created every minute